Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) Users Manual
- Journal
- University of New Hampshire Scholars Repository (University of New Hampshire at Manchester)
In The Last Decade
doi.org/w48819367 →Countries where authors are citing Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) Users Manual
This map shows the geographic impact of Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) Users Manual. It shows the number of citations coming from papers published by authors working in each country. You can also color the map by specialization and compare the number of citations received by Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) Users Manual with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) Users Manual more than expected).
Fields of papers citing Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) Users Manual
This network shows the impact of Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) Users Manual. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) Users Manual.
About Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) Users Manual
This paper, published in 2002, received 718 indexed citations . Written by John D. Mayer, Peter Salovey and David R. Caruso. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Social Psychology (541 citations), Clinical Psychology (329 citations) and Experimental and Cognitive Psychology (184 citations). Published in University of New Hampshire Scholars Repository (University of New Hampshire at Manchester).
Rankless uses publication and citation data sourced from OpenAlex, an open and comprehensive bibliographic database. While OpenAlex provides broad and valuable coverage of the global research landscape, it—like all bibliographic datasets—has inherent limitations. These include incomplete records, variations in author disambiguation, differences in journal indexing, and delays in data updates. As a result, some metrics and network relationships displayed in Rankless may not fully capture the entirety of a scholar's output or impact.
This paper is also available at doi.org/w48819367.